Actually Declassified isn't as bad of a game as it's been made out to be.

The gameplay is good, and multiplayer is what you expect from Call of Duty. And this is coming from someone who hasn't bought a COD since Modern Warfare 1 (play them over a friends, or rent them).

That being said the reason people are giving this game the justified 3 / 10, is because the campaign is less than 2 hours long. The AI is all over the place from competent to flat out refusing to acknowledge your presence. Matchmaking has gotten better after the patch, but still has some problems. And worse of all they're charging $50 for an unfinished game.

If you rent it it's you can tell it's a mediocre attempt at a COD 6 / 10. The killing force is charging nearly new console game price for a game that's subpar in most aspects.

What? No, it isn't Sony's fault. Sony didn't develop or publish CoD Vita. They inked a deal with Activision to have an exclusive CoD on Vita, and Activision was in charge of development and publishing. This deal was made well over 2 years ago. The game being crap falls squarely on Activision. 5 months from release they cancelled a "flawed" version of Black Ops II for Vita, and gave Nihilistic 5 months to throw together the pile of crap that was Declassified. Such a horrible decision. If they were so concerned with quality then how did they ever think that throwing together a crap game in 5 months would somehow be better?

Sony is ALWAYS to blame, but never the publisher or developer. What did Sony do to make this game bad? They simply allowed it to be on their platform.

Oh no wait.... j-blaze is here and he has the answers guys. Just hang on. Right, apparently, Sony have not been creating any great new IPs for Vita and they aren't creating a game that looks better than Monster Hunter. It's called Soul Sacrifice and it's also a great new IP.

I subscribe to GameInformer, but they are F***ing corrupt. The original online review for Blops2 was an 8.5. When the issue came out, suprise suprise, the game was reviewed instead by the editor, who gave it a 9.25.....the EXACT SAME score Halo 4 got. In other words, Activision said they HAD to give their shooter a score at least equal to the competition.

And now, 2 months later they are going to give it the original score, which is waaay after anyone who considered getting it has done so. Most likely the Wii U version.

And why could they not include the inevitable crappy review score for Blops Declassified in last months issue? Maybe because Activision, again had a the bargaining power (massive advertising-$$$$), so they instead asked them to wait until well after the launch.

Say I'm a paranoid idiot, and that I am making up a stupid conspiracy theory, but know this; I do not like/dislike Cod, I am merely pointing out what would appear to be VERY strong points/evidence into what seems to be a continuing trend in gaming journalism- corruption, black-mail, and bribery ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

F*** GameInformer, I am cancelling my subscription. Why did I ever subscribe to a magazine owned by a company that NEEDS to sell the games they are reviewing, in other words increasing the scores they give to games for more advertising $$ and sale $$.

Can't load the article cause my internet is sucking right now but are you sure you are talking about? I'm pretty sure they reviewed the handheld title of Black ops which is entirely different game (it's still call of duty though) than Black Ops 2 for consoles and PC. I like Gameinformer because it feels like a bonus while keeping your Power Up rewards card sub on but I'm pretty sure that they gave BO2 a great score and you thought they gave the same game a lower score later on which actually it was the Vita spin-off. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm a bit misinformed.

The original score for Blops 2 was an 8.5. In the follow uo magazine, it was reviewed by someone else (the editor himself) and gave it a 9.25. In this article, it shows Blops 2 with an 8.5 (original score), it will probably be the Wii U review (which is equal to or better than the 360 version).

The Blops Declassified review is a bit late, is what I was pointing out. What I typed makes perfect sense to me at least.

I actually ended up unsubbing to them in 2011 for the same crap. THey may get to reveal some games or at least a lot of unknown information about them, but as a magazine... they're crap and aren't really any better than Kotaku from a quality standpoint.

Lets face it you're cancelling your subscription because they gave a Vita game a 3. Had it been a Nintendo game or MS game you would be jumping for joy. They gave ZombiU a 5 but didn't see you complain about that one.

You clearly either didn't bother reading what he said, or you weren't capable of comprehending what he was actually saying. He specifically said "inevitable crappy review score for Blops Declassified", with "inevitable" suggesting that he already knows the game is shit and he knew it would get a horrible score. So why the fuck would a low score for a game he already practically admits is shit, why would that make him unsubscribe? That's some nice logic you got there. You completely missed his entire point, and you saw only what you wanted to see.

They do have good interviews and sometimes exclusive reveals for things. I never read their reviews, or at least never use them in my decision to purchase a game, but the magazine itself isn't that bad.

If you purchase enough games at gamestop then the cost of the power-up rewards card more than pays for itself, and you can opt to just get the digital version(which they push anyways), and never be bothered with the print version, or simply opt out all together. Game Informer is no more corrupt than any other major website on the net, and they are all influenced by the publishers in some ways.

Yeah these scores are old because I saw these scores on the magazine a week or two ago... But in the magazine it says it got an 8.5. Show me a link where they gave BO2 a higher score beforehand. I'll like to see them get caught red handed myself. :P

It seems neither side gave the Vita justice. How can Sony bundle a game with their console not knowing the quality of a game that is supposed to represent their console? Didn't they bother to play it or were they only concerned that the game was exclusive and that's all that matters.

The only thing these two companies have in common, at this point, is they both had really great ideas and bundled two failing executions into one package.

Sony has come up with one of the greatest ideas in handheld gaming and hasn't done much since. They haven't been able to push cross-buy to my satisfaction. The price is outrageous. They aren't pushing the Vita as an extension of the Playstation 3 to the point where it represents a seamless gaming experience while at the same time making both consoles a benefit to each other. I want them to both be important individually while making both dependent on one another.

For example, I want to be able to play the PS3, jump to the Vita, continue my game portable, play online with friends on the go, and have the benefit of using the Vita's features because I decided to go portable. Yet I can't play online with friends on the go even if I get the 3G Vita WITH a 50/month subscription.

Same with Call of Duty: Declassified. To start, it's a portable-only edition. That would be okay if they would have made a quality stand-alone. Yet they didn't. They didn't even take much advantage of the Vita for what it represents. Neither of them are. It's like these companies came out and said "I have a dream about what we want to do. Now let's see if it can be done in the business world."

If I may ask, how are they not pushing cross buy to your satisfaction? They just started the promotion with a game that release last month, and there are a couple games that have it included already, with more to come. Obviously not all 3rd party publishers are going to support it, if any.

How is the price outrageous? You buy the PS3 version for the same price you would anyways, and get the Vita version free.

The rest of your points you backed up, so you don't need to clarify those.

The PS Vita was released in February this year (Dec.2011 in Japan). During it's 11 month release the PS Vita has failed to establish Cross-Buy as a standard feature for it's system.

As it stands right now the Cross-Buy feature accounts for less than 5 games. This includes PS Allstars, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, and Ratchet & Clank: Full Frontal Assault. The promotion you mention began in August and includes the three PS3 titles mentioned above. The Vita game library is approx. 60+ titles.

Doing the math, this accounts for less than 3% of the available titles. Of this 3%, none are 3rd parties, leading myself to believe there won't be much standardization of the Cross-Buy feature. It will be pushed by Sony as usual, with occassional support from struggling titles. This is unacceptable to my satisfaction for several reasons.

First, I never believed I should have to pay 60 bucks for a console game and then have to pay an extra 40+ dollars for an EXACT portable version that had no connection with each other in terms of saves or game progress. This is one of the biggest reasons I lost interest in the PSP handheld. The kicker is that you never knew whether the PSP version would be an exact copy of it's console counterpart or a completely seperate game under the same name. For example, I would purchase Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on the PS3 for 60.00 and then buy Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on the PSP for an additional 40.00. Both games are exactly the same and had the same title. Yet one was for the PS3 and one was for the PSP with no functional relationship with each other in terms of gaming purposes. Example #2 would be buying Spider-man 3 for the PS3 for 60.00 and then buying Spider-man 3 for the PSP for an additional 40.00. Both games were completely different games despite having the same "Spider-man 3" title. Again, neither title served a functional relationship with each other outside of the occasional unlock of a costume for the other version. It never drove each other to provide a common purpose.

Then the Vita is announced and they strongly push the Vita's features as their main selling point for the system. Among these selling points were the Vita's ability to interact with the PS3.

I'm still not sure why your upset, or why your placing such an unreasonable demand on it's support. Cross-buy was ANNOUNCED in August, at which time they said the first game to support it would be PSASBR, along with the other two you mentioned. Less than 3 months later, the first game came out. It's been just over a month since the first game supporting it was released, and in that month 2 games have been released that support it, with another coming in February. To expect them to go back and add cross-buy into their older games doesn't make sense as they wouldn't be manufacturing those anymore, and all the retail units are either out in the wild, or sitting in a warehouse somewhere, and those $60 games are no longer $60.

As far as third party support, I think it's safe to assume that the bigger publishers are probably waiting to see how cross-buy affects sales of new games. If they people see buying a game at $60 with a free digital version in higher quantity than those just buying a $60 game, then the 3rd party will jump on board, or as you say use it to support a struggling title, not unlike they may do with PS+.

It sounds to me that your more upset about the cross-play feature not being 100% implemented in games that are on both platforms. If that's the case, then I can see where your coming from.

As far as cross-buy goes, maybe you should give it a little more time and see how it plays out. It's something new for Sony, and us, and things will change as they see the need to adapt the program for what works best.

Edit:I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you or trying to argue with you. I was just curious what you thought Sony could do better.

I believe there was some confusion on my part regarding the Cross buy feature of the Playstation Vita. For some reason I thought the "Cross Play" meant using the same game across the two systems. Since Cross Play was announced back from launch I assumed Cross Play was the Cross Buy announced from launch. I was wrong.

Anyway I purchased a Vita for Xmas and have yet to play the system yet. Indeed more time should be allowed for the Cross Buy feature (or Promotion). I'm still disappointed that 3G doesn't allow online gaming...something I was sure would be available for such a steep price by At&T.

Fair enough. I do somewhat agree with you on cross-play also, especially since cross-buy came out and i don't have to buy both copies. I would like to see it implemented in more games, along with remote play across all games.

I think you'll end up liking the Vita, almost everyone that has one falls in love with it. Does suck about the 3G and games, but I refuse to ever use AT&T so it made my decision easy there to not spend money on a data plan and 3G version. The Vita should have had 4G from the start, and not be locked into a carrier. It was the only thing that was boo'd at the Vita announcement.

It's a shame, I'm loving it so far, really great sense of survival, good use of the game pad and quite a few jumpy moments. I do see their point though, some of it is a bit repetitive but overall a great game, Don't be put off by this score

Score for almost all over paid Reviewers 2.8/100 I follow my own noise now days. Thos guys just compare games with others instead of actually giving a clean, real review. Yes comparing helps, but only helps the people that's played the games they've compared them to. Another thing declassified was under rated, no way was resistance better. Seems to me that if you've paid reviewer enough or given free games ( not like cod declass they had to pay the full overpriced 50$) you would get a better score. Note persona 4 9.8 at very least IMO .